פירוש על בראשית 5:28

ויולד בן AND HE BEGOT A SON (בן “son”, connected with the root בנה ‘‘to build”) — from whom the world was built up (peopled) (Tanchuma 1:1:11)

ויולד בן ויקרא את שמו נח, “he fathered a son and he called his name Noach.” The number 10 is crucial to the world and its continued existence. Noach was the tenth generation of the human species. It was therefore appropriate that he became instrumental in assuring the continued existence of the world, and, more specifically, mankind. Seeing that the rest of mankind was slated to perish during the deluge and none of them proclaimed the name of G’d you do not find the word בן, “son,” or the word שם, “name“ (allusion to the name of G’d) mentioned in connection with the birth of any of the other people listed in the Torah since Sheth. In Noach’s case, the word בן is not so much a description of his being a son,” but it is related to בנה, “built,” i.e. this person rebuilt the world after the deluge and assured its continued existence. In other words: this “son” was a “builder.”
We find further that the very word שם refers to maintaining something, preventing it from decaying. When Solomon said in Proverbs 10,7 ושם רשעים ירקב, that the “name of the wicked will rot,” this may strike us as strange at first glance seeing that שם, “name,” is something abstract and if so how could something abstract be subject to decay? However, Solomon referred to the actual subject of the שם, “name,” he spoke about.
There is another question in connection with Noach. According to what Lemech, Noach’s father is reported to have exclaimed when his son was born, he should have called him מנחם, “comforter.” Perhaps the letter מ in the word מנחם was somehow “swallowed,” and Noach’s real name was נחם. We have a similar construction in Zechariah 11,7 where the prophet says לאחד קראתי נעם ולאחד קראתי חבלים, “one I named Favour, the other Unity.” According to the normal rules of grammar the word should have been מנעם. However, we find frequent instances when a word is slightly abbreviated. In this instance, the reason may have been to make the name נח also spell חן (with the letters reversed) ,as it was he who found חן in the eyes of G’d.
The reason Noach’s father Lemech said of this son זה, “this one,” may be that he was part (maybe the first) of the tenth generation of mankind, and, as we pointed out earlier, any “tenth” is holy. There is a similarity here to Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will enshrine Him.” Lemech meant hat there were two reasons why he called “this one” Noach. This is reflected in the two cantillations on that very short word, i.e. it has both the tone-sign telisha and the tone-sign geresh. Do not be flippant about this as the entire Torah is full of all kinds of hints and allusions which have been written at the command of the Supreme Intellect. Anyone who delves into unraveling the secrets hidden in the text pays attention to every detail. This is why the sages said (Nedarim 37) that the cantillations also originated at Mount Sinai. When Nechemiah 8,8 speaks of ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא, “with careful analysis so that they could understand it,” he referred to 1) the text itself, 2) the cantillations.

From whom the world was built up. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say בן here, and not for other descendants? It simply should have written ויולד את נח. Perforce, בן connotes בנין (building).

(28-29) למך. Wie der kainitische, spricht auch der sethitische למך (wofür wir keine etymologische Bedeutung wissen) bedeutungsvolle Worte über die Zukunft, allein in entgegengesetztem Sinne aus. Dort endet das Geschlecht in vollendetster Verzweiflung, (soweit wir den Seherspruch verstanden). In Seths Geschlecht stellt sich aber ein anderes Bild der Entwicklung dar. Hier sehen wir fortwährend das Bessere aufkeimen und den Kampf mit dem Schlechten versuchen. Darum hat hier auch der Zukunftsspruch Trost im Munde: Dieser, oder dieses wird uns trösten von unserem Wirken und von dem entsagungsvollen Schaffen unserer Hände.

ויולד בן, “he begot a son.” Note that the Torah did not write “he begot Noach,” as it had done when listing the nine generations previous to Noach. This is already a hint that the future of mankind would be descended from this son of Lemech after the deluge. Noach and his three sons and their wives were the only survivors of the deluge. An alternate interpretation. Metushelach, Noach’s grandfather, a G–d fearing person, advised his son Lemech not to name his firstborn son immediately after he was born, as all the other people of that time were idolaters and sorcerers, and if they had known why his father had called him Noach they would have tried to harm him had they known his name, by applying their sorcerers’ formulas.

ויולד בן, “he begat a son;” the Torah did not write: “he sired Noach,” as it did in similar situations, i.e. Genesis 5,6; 5,9; Judges 11,1; Chronicles I 1,34, et al. The reason is that Noach warranted an extra verse seeing that the whole human race today exists thanks to him. The entire human race was destroyed during his lifetime; only he, his wife and his children and their wives, having been saved. A different interpretation: Metushelach, Lemech’s father, advised his son not to immediately name him as his contemporaries who were worshipping all kinds of idols, and who would curse and kill people who were monotheists, would try and kill him by telling their idols his name. After Noach had married and had sired a son, his father turned to his father again and was told then to call him Noach, as he had the potential to save all of mankind if they would follow his lifestyle. If not, they would all perish before they could harm him. (Compare Torah sh’leymah item 71 on this verse)